I guess my calculations have come home to bite me. Indeed, the worst case (68 kW) clearly is not acceptable and I would be happy to point that out as well. It is my intention to uncover the truth if this is possible and I am not obligated to anyone to support them or their cause if they are not honest. I am a big boy and accept responsibility for my mistakes.
My personal opinion is that the self sustaining mode is not being used properly in the current configuration. Half power output is not acceptable to me. I suggested an active cooling method that would allow a true full power, fast acting self sustaning mode to exist and I think that this will show up in improved products. The phase change coolant can be used to quickly cool the cores as needed. Controlled spraying of liquid coolant onto the cores will work wonders. Regards, Dave -----Original Message----- From: Robert Leguillon <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Nov 8, 2011 12:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress Look at your own calculations: c). If only liquid water is ejected by the ECATs, the minimum system power utput is 187.667 grams/second * (440.27 joules/gram liquid at 105 C –75.544 oules/gram liquid at 18 C) = 68.45 Kilowatts. d). If vapor is the only output then the maximum system power output is 187.667 rams/second * (2683.4 joules/gram vapor at 105 C –75.544 joules/gram liquid at 8 C) = 489.4 Kilowatts. If Rossi puts in 68.4 kilowatts, and tells people that all of the water is aporized, he has an apparent COP of 7.15. If we never collect and sparge the team, we'd never see this. He only guarantees a COP of 6! The "self sustaining" mode is a new invention of Rossi that only came about when veryone questioned the phase-change calorimetry. There is ample reason to pick t over carefully. David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > I agree with Berke. Rossi is have a good laugh at our expense. If the public eport is falsified, then it is a scam, pure and simple. Otherwise, it is real s many expect. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Robert Leguillon <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Nov 7, 2011 8:53 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress The issue of complete vaporization has plagued the E-Cat from the beginning. In >he early E-Cats, water was able to run straight out of the E-Cat and down a rain, without ever being collected or sparged. In the 1MW demo, the steam is ondensed and fed back in, there is no way of knowing how much water was ctually vaporized. s has been discussed ad nauseum, the stability of the temperature is the best ndication that the water is pegged to a stable boiling point, and NOT being ompletely vaporized. inimal back pressure can explain the elevated boiling point. Berke Durak <berke.du...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Colin Hercus <colinher...@gmail.com> wrote: > Or 25kg per module if we just bring the water to 105C and make very little > steam But that assumes that the numbers are falsified. In the customer's public report, it says : Water vaporized : 3716 l. So if that figure is false, anything goes and there is nothing left to investigate. You have to put faith in something, otherwise it is pointless to discuss - just call it a scam and move on. -- Berke Durak
